American Conservatism Is Fiddling While Rome Burns

[Idiot]

I don't think that's true.

Prove me wrong.

[EasyAce]

Excuse me but this country was founded BY doers ... smart, courageous doers and not whiners.

Aside from the fact that those who opposed their little uprising often enough denounced them as whiners, those who founded this country were also thinkers.

You could say the Original Dads weren't as smart as some of the people crawling around today's assorted Internet forums---they had to think before they acted, spoke or wrote. (Or does anyone think the War of Independence was just a spur-of-the-moment temper tantrum?)

I recommend very heartily this two-volume set (the total actual texts occupy 1,378 pages):



I realise that thinking is considered politically incorrect in today's political world where the schoolyard brawl (if not the back-alley mugging) has replaced deliberation and debate left and right alike; and, that the major party candidates for the presidency today think (as have too many of their predecessors) that the Constitution is some leaky old wooden boat moored at or just outside Boston Harbour.

But I remind myself (as I did in 2016, when the major party choice was between an arsonist with a blow torch and an arsonist who liked to play with matches) of the wisdom of Peter Viereck: Any attempt to scrape the barnacles off an excellent if aging ship is never considered to be an attack on the ship itself. Except by the barnacles.

I still believe in freedom, what's left of it.

I still believe in individual rights and responsibilities. (And in that order.)

I still believe in a properly-construed government, whose sole legitimate business---other than protecting us from and defending us against enemies actual and provably iminent from abroad and predators (real predators, not mere vice-mongers or sociopolitical opponents) at home---is to stay the hell out of your business, my business, everyone's business, until or unless one would obstruct or abrogate another's equivalent rights.

I still disbelieve in the improperly-consecrated State that pokes its nose into any and just about every nook, cranny, and crevice of everyone's business, whether or not it is either competent or constitutionally sanctioned to do so.

And, aside from what Gene Healy has called "the cult of the presidency" (it didn't begin with the incumbent, and the evidence as it is suggests it won't end with him, either) continuing to flourish, it should cause profound indigestion that what Sen. Sam Ervin once feared (As long as I have a mind to think, a tongue to speak, and a heart to love my country, I shall deny that the Constitution confers any autocratic power on the President, or authorizes him to convert George Washington's America into Gaius Caesar's Rome) threatens to come to pass, and that today's political (lack of) class seems to think in all seriousness that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were just fake news.

[Bigun]

Aside from the fact that those who opposed their little uprising often enough denounced them as whiners, those who founded this country were also thinkers.

You could say the Original Dads weren't as smart as some of the people crawling around today's assorted Internet forums---they had to think before they acted, spoke or wrote. (Or does anyone think the War of Independence was just a spur-of-the-moment temper tantrum?)

I recommend very heartily this two-volume set:



I realise that thinking is considered politically incorrect in today's political world where the schoolyard brawl (if not the back-alley mugging) has replaced deliberation and debate left and right alike; and, that the major party candidates for the presidency today think (as have too many of their predecessors) that the Constitution is some leaky old wooden boat moored at or just outside Boston Harbour.

But I remind myself (as I did in 2016, when the major party choice was between an arsonist with a blow torch and an arsonist who liked to play with matches) of the wisdom of Peter Viereck: Any attempt to scrape the barnacles off an excellent if aging ship is never considered to be an attack on the ship itself. Except by the barnacles.

I still believe in freedom, what's left of it.

I still believe in individual rights and responsibilities. (And in that order.)

I still believe in a properly-construed government, whose sole legitimate business---other than protecting us from and defending us against enemies actual and provably iminent from abroad and predators (real predators, not mere vice-mongers or sociopolitical opponents) at home---is to stay the hell out of your business, my business, everyone's business, until or unless one would obstruct or abrogate another's equivalent rights.

I still disbelieve in the improperly-consecrated State that pokes its nose into any and just about every nook, cranny, and crevice of everyone's business, whether or not it is either competent or constitutionally sanctioned to do so.

And, aside from what Gene Healy has called "the cult of the presidency" (it didn't begin with the incumbent, and the evidence as it is suggests it won't end with him, either) continuing to flourish, it should cause profound indigestion that what Sen. Sam Ervin once feared (George Washington's America [turning] into Gaius Caesar's Rome) threatens to come to pass, and that today's political (lack of) class seems to think in all seriousness that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were just fake news.

Not one word of argument on that from me @EasyAce

[roamer_1]

Prove me wrong.

How would you know one way or the other? YEARS ago, more Conservatives were outside the Republican party than in it... The split with the Republicans is a loooong time coming. Utter failure to back your peeps.

Conservatives always rack up more than 60% in surveys, and can hit in the 70s.
Why do you suppose you aren't getting their votes?
Maybe we need another Limbaugh 'See, I Told You So' moment.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think that's true.

It depends upon how narrowly one defines the word "conservative."

[PeteS in CA]

It depends upon how narrowly one defines the word "conservative."

Have we reached the point of, "Us four and no more and I'm not sure about those other three," yet?

[Cyber Liberty]

Have we reached the point of, "Us four and no more and I'm not sure about those other three," yet?

Don McClean:

"A long, long time ago, I can still remember..."

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How would you know one way or the other? YEARS ago, more Conservatives were outside the Republican party than in it... The split with the Republicans is a loooong time coming. Utter failure to back your peeps.

Conservatives always rack up more than 60% in surveys, and can hit in the 70s.
Why do you suppose you aren't getting their votes?
Maybe we need another Limbaugh 'See, I Told You So' moment.

I've never given a damn about the pretentious "principled conservatives" blah blah blah, but the last 2-3 months have shown me without a shadow of a doubt the huge differences between the 2 parties. I'm all in in November for the GOP.

[roamer_1]

It depends upon how narrowly one defines the word "conservative."

Actually, Conservatism is very wide. Very diverse. Factional conservatives are conservative too. As a political movement however, the promise is to support each other. If you are a DEFCON conservative - and ONLY concerned with the military application - the rest does not matter to you... If that is who you are, it is no skin off your nose to support the candidate that is a full conservative, because AS a full Conservative, he WILL uphold your principles too. And so it goes.

What I am getting here is division. Y'all want it to be OK to throw principles under the bus - To IGNORE, say, fiscal conservatives and their demands, wanting THEM to take a hit for YOUR team.

That's bullcrap. And FICONS are likely the second largest conservative base. Businessmen, bankers, most every small business... Most anyone who is flying right and knows how to balance a checkbook.

Throw THEM under the bus? No wonder y'all can hardly drag your candidate across the line. You are breaking the coalition and acting JUST like moderates. And that's a damn shame.

[roamer_1]

I've never given a damn about the pretentious "principled conservatives" blah blah blah, but the last 2-3 months have shown me without a shadow of a doubt the huge differences between the 2 parties. I'm all in in November for the GOP.

Knock yourself out. From 1980 forward tells me otherwise, without a single damn win in all that time. Like I said, knock yourself out. But you're being played.

[Cyber Liberty]

Actually, Conservatism is very wide. Very diverse. Factional conservatives are conservative too. As a political movement however, the promise is to support each other. If you are a DEFCON conservative - and ONLY concerned with the military application - the rest does not matter to you... If that is who you are, it is no skin off your nose to support the candidate that is a full conservative, because AS a full Conservative, he WILL uphold your principles too. And so it goes.

What I am getting here is division. Y'all want it to be OK to throw principles under the bus - To IGNORE, say, fiscal conservatives and their demands, wanting THEM to take a hit for YOUR team.

That's bullcrap. And FICONS are likely the second largest conservative base. Businessmen, bankers, most every small business... Most anyone who is flying right and knows how to balance a checkbook.

Throw THEM under the bus? No wonder y'all can hardly drag your candidate across the line. You are breaking the coalition and acting JUST like moderates. And that's a damn shame.

Bottom-line, rule of thumb:  If you ever decide somebody "ain't conservative," you are declaring it a limited Party that won't win any offices, and will have no power to effect change.

[EdinVA]

Actually, Conservatism is very wide. Very diverse. Factional conservatives are conservative too. As a political movement however, the promise is to support each other. If you are a DEFCON conservative - and ONLY concerned with the military application - the rest does not matter to you... If that is who you are, it is no skin off your nose to support the candidate that is a full conservative, because AS a full Conservative, he WILL uphold your principles too. And so it goes.

What I am getting here is division. Y'all want it to be OK to throw principles under the bus - To IGNORE, say, fiscal conservatives and their demands, wanting THEM to take a hit for YOUR team.

That's bullcrap. And FICONS are likely the second largest conservative base. Businessmen, bankers, most every small business... Most anyone who is flying right and knows how to balance a checkbook.

Throw THEM under the bus? No wonder y'all can hardly drag your candidate across the line. You are breaking the coalition and acting JUST like moderates. And that's a damn shame.

So you are telling us that if we are fiscal conservatives and refuse to vote for anyone that won't balance the checkbook, BUT fully support abortion, then we are good?

[roamer_1]

Bottom-line, rule of thumb:  If you ever decide somebody "ain't conservative," you are declaring it a limited Party that won't win any offices, and will have no power to effect change.

I think that's false. Waters it down so much that it loses all definition.

No, there are definitions that delineate what Conservatism is... Or it is nothing other than mere Republican-ism, and reduced to a glee club.

[roamer_1]

So you are telling us that if we are fiscal conservatives and refuse to vote for anyone that won't balance the checkbook, BUT fully support abortion, then we are good?

No.

I am saying if you are a fiscal conservative and care about those principles you should also support the other conservative factions by picking a fiscal conservative that also embraces the principles of the other factions too. I do not support a fiscal conservative that does not also embrace pro-life principles... And the other way around.

[skeeter]

I think that's false. Waters it down so much that it loses all definition.

No, there are definitions that delineate what Conservatism is... Or it is nothing other than mere Republican-ism, and reduced to a glee club.

By your definition you've doomed yourself to a small group that will never have any political influence. Never in the course of human history has there been a non-authoritarian government that wasn't some form of coalition between factions that didn't entirely agree on everything. The thirteen colonies got together only because of a willingness to compromise.

[Cyber Liberty]

By your definition you've doomed yourself to a small group that will never have any political influence. Never in the course of human history has there been a non-authoritarian government that wasn't some form of coalition between factions that didn't entirely agree on everything. The thirteen colonies got together only because of a willingness to compromise.

...in the face of numerous enemies waiting to take their measure of the new Nation.  I'm sure Monroe's Doctrine was considered extremely bellicose in its day, but it was the right move.

[roamer_1]

By your definition you've doomed yourself to a small group that will never have any political influence. Never in the course of human history has there been a non-authoritarian government that wasn't some form of coalition between factions that didn't entirely agree on everything. The thirteen colonies got together only because of a willingness to compromise.

That's funny, because every time true Conservatism has been preached in my life DIRECTLY correlates to the rise of the Conservative juggernaut. Every time. The rest of the time has been loss, or bare contested wins.

It is the moderates that have been preaching the big tent philosophy, and it is the moderates that have had to eke out contested wins.

[Absalom]

@ Roamer,
you can assert and argue w/these types till you turn blue, yet nothing will come of it as they're
stuck of stupid.
As Kirk pointed out: CONSERVATISM HAS NOTHING TO DO W/POLITICS. N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!!!
Yet this is all they know (and want to know).
Ideas are far to burdensome for them as that requires reflection and reasoning, which are
incompatible w/table pounding, noise and insults.
It's a dead end.

[LegalAmerican]

I've never given a damn about the pretentious "principled conservatives" blah blah blah, but the last 2-3 months have shown me without a shadow of a doubt the huge differences between the 2 parties. I'm all in in November for the GOP.

 

[LegalAmerican]

No, it may not be you that has changed stance... but that's only because you are a stubborn old coot who probably never has "changed" your stance...

despite the harshness of reality smacking you upside the head....lololol.

Now...if I ..said that!     

[skeeter]

That's funny, because every time true Conservatism has been preached in my life DIRECTLY correlates to the rise of the Conservative juggernaut. Every time. The rest of the time has been loss, or bare contested wins.

It is the moderates that have been preaching the big tent philosophy, and it is the moderates that have had to eke out contested wins.

Correlation is not necessarily causal. Demographics are shifting, there hasn’t been a landslide national election for nearly 40 years - Reagan’s. Since they’ve all been close. You may not have noticed but public education is cranking out legions of cookie cutter marxists and a message of ‘rugged individualism’ falls on the deaf ears of third world immigrants.

And if we choose to not participate because no candidate is ‘pure’ enough we’ll soon pass the point of equilibrium and the landslides will be going in the other direction.

[DCPatriot]

If Barack Obama had the same adversarial media coverage Pres. Trump 'enjoys', he have had the IRS up every editor and publisher/producer by now.

Then I thought about it. 

President Trump, even in a 2nd term, wouldn't waste his time siccing the IRS on the media.

And Hillary?   She's just have them murdered and disposed of.

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I'd imagine the "Principled Conservatives", sitting around in their tighty whities in the basement, shitposting on random internet forums about how "principled" they are, imagine they're really making a significant dent in the world.

[DCPatriot]

I'd imagine the "Principled Conservatives", sitting around in their tighty whities in the basement, shitposting on random internet forums about how "principled" they are, imagine they're really making a significant dent in the world.

How many of us know or knew somebody who "...has all the answers and knows all the solutions" but whose private life was a mess?

This is the same thing only on a grander scale.  LOL!

[Idiot]

Correlation is not necessarily causal. Demographics are shifting, there hasn’t been a landslide national election for nearly 40 years - Reagan’s. Since they’ve all been close. You may not have noticed but public education is cranking out legions of cookie cutter marxists and a message of ‘rugged individualism’ falls on the deaf ears of third world immigrants.

And if we choose to not participate because no candidate is ‘pure’ enough we’ll soon pass the point of equilibrium and the landslides will be going in the other direction.

@skeeter ...  Thank you!  Your posts are always excellent sir.